Skip to content

[opt](nerieds) PhysicalOlapScan and PhysicalFileScan should print its id in plan#62509

Merged
morrySnow merged 4 commits into
apache:masterfrom
englefly:physicalOlapScan-print
Apr 20, 2026
Merged

[opt](nerieds) PhysicalOlapScan and PhysicalFileScan should print its id in plan#62509
morrySnow merged 4 commits into
apache:masterfrom
englefly:physicalOlapScan-print

Conversation

@englefly
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #xxx

Related PR: #xxx

Problem Summary:

Release note

None

Check List (For Author)

  • Test

    • Regression test
    • Unit Test
    • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
    • No need to test or manual test. Explain why:
      • This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed.
      • Previous test can cover this change.
      • No code files have been changed.
      • Other reason
  • Behavior changed:

    • No.
    • Yes.
  • Does this need documentation?

    • No.
    • Yes.

Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

  • Confirm the release note
  • Confirm test cases
  • Confirm document
  • Add branch pick label

@englefly englefly marked this pull request as ready for review April 15, 2026 03:43
@englefly
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

run buildall

@Thearas
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thearas commented Apr 15, 2026

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

FE UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (4/4) 🎉
Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

FE Regression Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 50.00% (2/4) 🎉
Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

@englefly
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/review

@englefly
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/build.sh

@englefly
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

run buildall

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Summary

Requesting changes for one blocking regression and one missed parallel path.

  1. regression-test/suites/query_p0/stats/partitionRowCount.groovy now hardcodes a statement-local AbstractPlan.id (19). That id comes from StatementContext.getNextObjectId() / StatementScopeIdGenerator.newObjectId(), so unrelated optimizer rewrites can renumber the scan and break the case without any semantic plan change.
  2. PhysicalHudiScan still overrides toString() and is created via LogicalHudiScanToPhysicalHudiScan, so the Hudi file-scan path still does not print an id.

Critical Checkpoints

  • Goal of task: Partially achieved. PhysicalOlapScan and base PhysicalFileScan now print AbstractPlan.id, but PhysicalHudiScan does not. The added regression does not prove the behavior robustly because it hardcodes a statement-local id.
  • Small and focused: Yes.
  • Concurrency: Not applicable; these changes only affect explain-string formatting.
  • Lifecycle/static init: Not applicable.
  • Config changes: None.
  • Compatibility: User-visible physical-plan explain text changes; acceptable if intentional, but tests must avoid brittle ids.
  • Parallel code paths: Not fully covered; PhysicalHudiScan remains on the old format.
  • Special conditions/comments: None.
  • Test coverage: Insufficient. The only updated regression is brittle, and there is no coverage for the Hudi path.
  • Test result changes: The modified expectation is not stable.
  • Observability: Table name is still present in the payload, so explain readability is mostly preserved.
  • Transaction/persistence/data writes/FE-BE variable passing: Not applicable.
  • Performance: No meaningful impact.
  • Other issues: None beyond the above.

Comment thread regression-test/suites/query_p0/stats/partitionRowCount.groovy
@hello-stephen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

FE Regression Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 0.30% (2/664) 🎉
Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

@englefly
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

run buildall

@englefly
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

run buildall

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

FE Regression Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 40.00% (2/5) 🎉
Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

@morrySnow morrySnow merged commit 7c89384 into apache:master Apr 20, 2026
31 of 32 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants